Travel

December 10, 2015

With the holiday season fast approaching, I have been thinking a lot about vacation. Abandoning the cold, sitting on a warm sunny beach, umbrella-drink in hand sounds pretty good.

But one thing is for sure, after the news this week, I will be thinking twice about taking a cruise ship to get there.

Over the weekend a man was arrested for posing as a doctor for years aboard cruise ships in Norway and Germany. The man, allegedly, treated hundreds of patients and worked for several different cruise companies, including Carnival – one of the worlds largest cruise carriers – before he was discovered. While information about the extent of his ruse is still coming out, according to foreign news outlets, written up by The Inquisitor, the man also worked on ships in the Caribbean.

He was able to get his false information and papers past a number of people aboard multiple cruise lines in order to work as a doctor. On his paperwork, he falsely claimed to be a specialist in anesthesia and also intensive care.

It is clear that the cruise companies that hired him didn’t sufficiently verify any of his credentials, including where he went to medical school, if he graduated with a degree, his specialties, if he had been the subject of investigation, or even if he was licensed to practice medicine.

Cruise companies have a duty to hire competent medical staff* and they’d probably be on the hook if someone was killed or injured by this guy. But let’s say they hire someone with real credentials, but who was still negligent (which happens all the time).

Incredibly for over 100 years, the law has shockingly allowed cruise lines to escape any liability for medical malpractice committed by the medical teams they hire.

Luckily, things have begun to change. Just last year, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found the old rule, which limited the companies’ liability, outdated. In describing the case, USA Today explained,

The judges noted that the Royal Caribbean doctor and nurse wore cruise line uniforms, were presented as ship employees and that the onboard medical center was described glowingly in promotional materials. Some modern cruise ships, they noted, have sophisticated intensive care units, laboratories and the ability to do live video conference links with medical experts on shore.

The cruise industry has more immunity from wrongdoing than virtually any other industry in America, and certainly more than other industries that transport people, on whom we rely for our safety.

There are multiple ways laws and contracts limit a cruise company’s liability. Many of these are unknown to passengers- starting with the ticket (which is actually a binding contract!)

Courts have interpreted archaic maritime laws to allow cruise companies to insert a vast array of provisions into ticket “contracts” that make it difficult or impossible for Americans to bring suit should they be hurt. And if the ship does not touch a U.S. port, passengers’ legal rights are even more limited.

And even if a passenger does know to look at the ticket for contract information, it is unlikely that he/she will be able to understand the legal rights they are relinquishing.

The law is complicated and passengers should know what they might face before setting sail. If you’re thinking about it – like I am - CJ&D's new FAQ is a must read!

November 24, 2015

Everywhere you look online these days, there’s a list. If you want something to go viral, lists are everything, say the experts. “33 Photos of People Taken Seconds Before They Die. #10 Is from My Nightmares. ‘Use lists whenever possible’ [says Emerson Spartz, an Internet-media entrepreneur]. 'Lists just hijack the brain’s neural circuitry.'”

That sounds wonderful. I especially love the synchronicity of some lists. For example, the American Highway Users Alliance has issued its new list of “the country’s worst bottlenecks—as measured by total hours of delays annually, fuel wasted, and lost value of time (as in productivity lost while sitting and fuming in traffic).” This was published just as ABC Newspublished a list big chains that are open on Thanksgiving and Black Friday - as well as their hours - so you'll know exactly when to hit major traffic snarls. So helpful!

But starting off the week was Consumer Report’s annual “Naughty and Nice” list. CR explains this list as follows: "While Consumer Reports consistently puts products to the test, we have also developed an annual tradition where we scrutinize the policies, practices, and behavior of the companies that make and sell the goods and provide the services you use every day." This list is “timed to coincide with Black Friday and the upcoming holiday season, when spending is in the spotlight.” Spending, and dare we say, driving.

For example, writes The Consumerist, Costco "made Consumer Report’s 'naughty' list because it 'fought and lost in federal court against jeweler Tiffany for some shady behavior. They were accused of selling diamond engagement rings and using the name Tiffany, which Costco claimed at some length in court that they thought meant a type of diamond solitaire setting, and not a brand name.'" Costco also made ABC’s list – it opens 9 am this Friday!

But a very important new list was issued today: U.S. PIRG Education Fund’s 30th annual Trouble in Toyland report, noting “unsafe toys remain widely available.” Appendix 1 of the report lists “Potentially Hazardous Toys” - dangerous for reasons like chemical and lead poisoning hazards, chocking risks and excessive noise.

So please, check out this report before driving over to Costco to buy toys this week. And stay safe out there on the bottlenecks. And - have a wonderful Thanksgiving!

May 20, 2015

In an earlier version of The Pop Tort, my colleague discussed the SPACE Act- a bill recently passed out of the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. This bill would immunize private space companies from liability for any wrong doing- whether negligent, reckless or even intentional. The bill is expected to reach the House floor any day.

Little did I know, that was only the beginning of my dissent into what seems like a dimension of legislative madness. The deeper I looked into this proposal, the more surreal it becomes.

If the House version of the SPACE Act is enacted, not only would the private space industry be free from any liability for causing harm during a space launch or reentry, but they would also be free from government regulation for the next 8 years. Under the proposed law, the first time the Secretary of Transportation could propose any rule related to commercial space flight would be 2023!

In their infinite wisdom, a majority of the House Science Committee thinks federal regulators need this time to “learn” about potential regulations (even thought the government has been involved in space flight since the 1950’s). Even though this industry experienced major, high-profile disasters just last year, these Members of Congress think that private space companies should just regulate themselves for now, without any government oversight.

But the madness doesn’t stop there. The SPACE Act not only suspends all government regulation of space flight and immunizes private, commercial space corporations from any wrongdoing, but it also creates the likelihood that taxpayers will be the ones on the hook if something big goes wrong.

Section 7 of the SPACE Act, which takes away all civil causes of action against a private space corporation, could force states, cities and individuals to rely far more on the federal government for assistance in the event of a commercial space disaster during launch or reentry of a private spacecraft. That’s because in disaster situations, one criteria FEMA uses to determine the type and amount of emergency assistance it should provide is whether “compensation by insurance for disaster related losses” can cover costs. Section 7 of the SPACE Act make individual insurance claims against a negligent space company essentially impossible.

Often, when a disaster happens and there is inadequate liability insurance, FEMA will supplement state and local funds for rebuilding. If the negligentcorporation is not responsible for the costs involved, taxpayers may have to pick up at least part of the tab to rebuild schools, hospitals, roads, private businesses and homes. Taxpayers may also have to pay, at least in part, for disaster related death benefits and medical costs for individuals who are hurt because of the incident.

But even if Section 7 were omitted from the legislation (and state tort and property claims could still be filed), the law already provides that taxpayers subsidize dangerous commercial space activities. Under current law, space companies are only required to maintain $500 million in liability insurance. After that minimal amount, the federal government can indemnify the corporation for damages up to $1.5 billion dollars - assuming Congress appropriates the money. That means even if the space corporation can be held liable under the law, the taxpayers, not the private company at fault, could pay a huge part of the bill if something catastrophic happens.

The SPACE Act is so bizarre it seems to come from another dimension. Only in the Twilight Zone could ‘fiscal conservatives’ promote legislation to completely deregulate an industry, absolve them of any liability, and then force taxpayers to pay the bill if anything goes awry.

May 13, 2015

It's no secret that catastrophes tend to highlight longstanding, overlooked national problems. It's also true that there's usually a very small window of time to fix things before we stop paying attention.

It is both ironic and disturbing that the horrendous Amtrak crash in Philadelphia, and the ensuing focus on Amtrak safety and our nation's infrastructure, may end up circumventing an even larger disaster. NotesPolitico, the House Appropriations Committee is about to markup a bill dealing with Amtrak funding ...

November 25, 2011

For those traveling on the road this holiday, certain things most certainly are on your mind: more people on the road, high gas prices, police radar (that means you - slow down!). Here’s one more: dangerous Mexican trucks.

Earlier this week, the Teamsters, Public Citizen and the Sierra Club filed suit in federal court (i.e., expanded their lawsuit) against the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration “to block the U.S. Department of Transportation from opening the U.S. border to dangerous Mexican trucks.” Perhaps you were unaware that until this year, these unsafe trucks and polluting were not allowed on our roads. Public Citizen explains:

In February 2001, a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) tribunal ruled that the U.S. has been violating the terms of NAFTA because it has limited access of Mexican trucks to a 20-mile commercial zone along the border. NAFTA, which took effect in 1994, required the U.S. to allow Mexican trucks access to all border-state roads starting in 1995, and to drive anywhere in the country by January 2000. The Clinton administration recognized the danger the trucks posed and for seven years refused to expand their access beyond the narrow border zone.

Public Citizen analyses have found that Mexico's truck inspection system is riddled with holes that allow vehicles with major safety defects to stay on the road. In addition, federal studies have shown that Mexican trucks are three times more likely to have safety deficiencies than U.S. trucks.

But earlier this year, under an agreement “quietly signed” in Mexico City, Mexican trucks will be allowed on U.S. highways “in return for Mexico's decision to lift tariffs on U.S. goods.” Although DOT outlined strict new safety and environmental rules for these trucks, “recent government studies raise some doubts about the effectiveness of those measures.” In addition, “The cost of ensuring Mexican truck safety outweighs the amount saved by U.S. importers or exporters, according to a February 2010 Congressional Research Service report.”

This led 34 lawmakers to send a letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood “to terminate the program, citing the shortcoming of the previous cross-border program, which ‘failed to assure that every Mexican truck was properly inspected at the border.’” See also letter from Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.).

The pilot program got off to a rocky start when the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration approved trucking operator Grupo Behr from Tijuana, Mexico. The carrier owned one 20-year-old semi-tractor trailer with numerous safety issues. FMCSA had to disqualify it from the program after the Teamsters Union and others brought Grupo Behr's safety record to light. A second carrier, Transportes Olympic, of Monterrey, Mexico, started operating in the U.S. last month. Safety concerns have also been raised about Transportes Olympic.

The lawsuit alleges that the pilot program is illegal because the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is breaking numerous safety and environmental laws.

In the meantime, the Truck Safety Coalition has some important information for all of you holiday motorists out there. Drive safely.

Got a News Tip?

All opinions expressed on this blog are those of the authors only. Any disputes should be addressed to the authors or commentators. The Pop Tort invites comment to further the debate on issues addressed, but we reserve the right to deny or remove any post or comment.